1,721,007 research outputs found
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
A checklist of journal articles from CIMMYT and its collaborators 1966-1999
No full textThe scope of this Checklist is limited: it covers only journal articles - not conference papers, not newsletters, not theses, not CIMMYT imprints. Thus it represents only part of CIMMYT's published output. And the search for material went back only to 1966, the date of the official establishment of the Center; so the compilation omits the very important work done by CIMMYT's antecedent organizations. To avoid inconsistencies, we have adopted tight rules of admissibility and apply them rigorously: -Only articles resulting from CIMMIT's research program -Only articles that were subject to an independent peer review Part A lists articles resulting from research carried out within CIMMYT or in cooperation with advanced research institutions. Typically, there is an author who is a member of CIMMYT's staff; often, however, the Center's involvement is represented by a visiting scientist or graduate student who reports work carried out while on assignment at CIMMYT. In a few cases, the whole work has been done by other scientists in other institutions but, if it was partly or wholly financed by CIMMYT, or if it was identified as part of a collaborative project with CIMMYT, then the resulting article is included as a product of the Center's overall program. Excluded are those articles that were written after the authors joined CIMMYT's staff but to report work carried out in their previous employments (not. therefore, part of CIMMYT's program): the exclusion remains even when 'CIMMYT' is given as the author's affiliation. To balance this, we have tried to find and include those articles describing CIMMYT work that were written after the authors had moved elsewhere. CIMMYT's mission stresses its cooperation with NARS: resulting papers are listed separately in Part B. Typically, there is an explicit statement that the article describes cooperative work, but this fact can also be inferred when CIMMYT and NARS staff are named as co-authors. However, even when CIMMYT, or one of its staff, is named in a paper that reports work at a cooperating institution, the paper is excluded from either Part of the present list (a) when the Center's only contribution has been to provide seed, or (b) when the staff member's role is limited to that of a post facto reviewer (or asesor intelectual). Also, articles announcing the release or registration of germplasm on new cultivars are not listed here but in a separate compilation.94 page
A thousand peer-reviewed journal articles from CIMMYT and its collaborators 1966-2002
No full textThe scope of this publication is limited: it covers only journal articles - not conference papers, not book chapters, not newsletters, not theses, not CIMMYT imprints. Thus it represents only part of CIMMYT's published output. And the search for material went back only to 1966, the date of the official establishment of the Center; so the compilation omits the very important work done by CIMMYT's antecedent organizations. To avoid inconsistencies, we have adopted tight rules of admissibility and apply them rigorously: -Only articles resulting from CIMMYT's research program -Only articles that were subject to an independent peer review Part A lists articles resulting from research carried out within CIMMYT or in cooperation with advanced research institutions. Typically, there is an author who is a member of CIMMYT's staff; often, however, the Center's involvement is represented by a visiting scientist or graduate student who reports work carried out while on assignment at CIMMYT. In a few cases, the whole work has been done by other scientists in other institutions but, if it was partly or wholly financed by CIMMYT, or if it was identified as part of a collaborative project with CIMMYT, then the resulting article is included as a product of the Center's overall program. Excluded are those articles that were written after the authors joined CIMMYT's staff but to report work carried out in their previous employments (not, therefore, part of CIMMYT's program): the exclusion remains even when 'CIMMYT' is given as the author's affiliation. To balance this, we have tried to find and include those articles describing CIMMYT work that were written after the authors had moved elsewhere. CIMMYT's mission stresses its cooperation with NARS: resulting papers are listed separately in Part B. Typically, there is an explicit statement that the article describes cooperative work, but this fact can also be inferred when CIMMYT and NARS staff are named as co-authors. However, even when CIMMYT, or one of its staff, is named in a paper that reports work at a cooperating institution, the paper is excluded from either Part of the present list (a) when the Center's only contribution has been to provide seed, or (b) when the staff member's role is limited to that of a post facto reviewer (or asesor intelectual). Also, articles announcing the release or registration of germplasm or new cultivars are not listed here but in a separate compilation. By applying the rule requiring independent peer review, we are able to include the refereed 'articles' that have been published, starting 1994, in Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter as well as the 'research articles', starting 1990, in Wheat Information Service; on the other hand, we omit articles from journals that did not use external reviewers, such as Development Policy Review, Plant Disease Reporter (before 1975) and Rachis. More importantly, the rule requires the exclusion of the conference papers that journals publish in special sections for which the editors waive the usual peer reviews _ for example, the annual "proceedings" issue (No. 5) of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. However, a conference paper is included if there is evidence that it has been subject to independent review, as when there are separate dates for 'received' and 'accepted'. To conserve space in this compilation, the names of countries are reduced to the codes recommended by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).112 page
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Economic and social information : an essential element for development decision-making
Get PDFMeeting: Symposium on Scientific and Engineering Secondary Information Transfer for the Developing Countries, 23-24 June 1975, Bruxelles, BEAlso published in Proceedings of the Symposium on Scientific and Engineering Secondary Information Transfer for the Developing Countries, Paris, 1975, p. 69-7
- …
